This site IS different than Canucks Central, always has been. When Central folded and their users descended here they were told that Central's open policy, which in the end was the architect of it's demise, won't be acceptable here. There are some big shots being taken at posters, and I'm not going to tolerate it.

I guess what I am saying is this is CanucksCorner and you came to our house. It's up to all of you if you want to be part of what we've created here. We didn't have these issues before Central closed.

I want everyone to get along. I makes my life a whole lot easier and makes the board better for everyone. If not I have no problem punting the people that don't want to respect my visions for this site. I pay the bills, it's my house....not toomuch to ask I don't think.

I'm intrigued by this case. Obviously it has no effect on my life so who takes the brunt of the award is incidental but when it's all over I hope we get a full explanation why the judge makes the award or maybe does not...

For the life of me I can't understand how a court can define how the injury occurred...was it the punch or was it the piling on after the fall ?

I wonder why the case is being heard in Ontario ?

I have to think that either the length of time to bring it to trial is indicative of the difficulty to prove the claimants point of view or the amount asked for is so large it has become a case celeb and must be heard at such a high level ie Supreme Court ?

I'm not into who's right and who wrong as much as how the court will reach a decision

Fred wrote:I'm intrigued by this case. Obviously it has no effect on my life so who takes the brunt of the award is incidental but when it's all over I hope we get a full explanation why the judge makes the award or maybe does not...

For the life of me I can't understand how a court can define how the injury occurred...was it the punch or was it the piling on after the fall ?

I wonder why the case is being heard in Ontario ?

I have to think that either the length of time to bring it to trial is indicative of the difficulty to prove the claimants point of view or the amount asked for is so large it has become a case celeb and must be heard at such a high level ie Supreme Court ?

I'm not into who's right and who wrong as much as how the court will reach a decision

Fred wrote:I'm intrigued by this case. Obviously it has no effect on my life so who takes the brunt of the award is incidental but when it's all over I hope we get a full explanation why the judge makes the award or maybe does not...

For the life of me I can't understand how a court can define how the injury occurred...was it the punch or was it the piling on after the fall ?

I wonder why the case is being heard in Ontario ?

I have to think that either the length of time to bring it to trial is indicative of the difficulty to prove the claimants point of view or the amount asked for is so large it has become a case celeb and must be heard at such a high level ie Supreme Court ?

I'm not into who's right and who wrong as much as how the court will reach a decision